Spider-Man 2.5 (yes, it's already planned!) (merged) (1 Viewer)

[Demis G]

Just watched it!
I liked it very much and it was the PERFECT way to refresh my memory before going to see the 3rd one

 

[Geoff_D]

2.1 is pretty darn good, and nothing feels forced, or drags the movie down. Jameson's Spidey bit was very funny, the new action beats are great and the MJ shoe-store scene is very good too. If anything this DVD reminded me how much I love the Spidey movies, and now I'm even more jazzed about #3.

It's odd that the headbutt was removed from the Ock/Spidey clockface tumble and replaced with a punch a la the R2/R3 editions, but I'm guessing that this time around Sony couldn't be bothered to prepare cut/uncut versions as required.

It's also a pity that there's no dts on 2.1, as the track on the Superbit is a killer. The new transfer is better, being much less contrasty, although edge halos are still far too noticable.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I finally bit on this and must admit to being impressed. Every addition made adds to the depth of the film, and it'll be interesting to go back to the original edition and compare.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I suppose I'm the lone dissenter here... virtually every scene extension I found to be superfluous, telling us again about the stuff we already knew. The birthday party stuff was so unnecessary. I suppose the bit where Osborn lets up and apologizes saves him from being as one-note as he is in the theatrical cut, but the scene itself was dull. The impression I got (which could be wrong) was that many of the extensions came in the first part of the film, and made it a little draggier.

That said, the add-ons to the big fight were nice.

Ultimately, I think they made the right choices the first time around -- the stuff that was cut for pacing deserved to be cut. The parts of the fight that weren't completed due to scheduling and budget were neat, but not necessary. At the same time, I don't think that 2.1 is bad. I just think it's not as good as 2.

I haven't seen the Superbit, but I was kind of underwhelmed watching this on my projector. Does that site linked above have picture quality comparisons?

 

[TonyD]

aaron i agree with you on pq for 2.1.
looked soft and had a ton of EE

i have the sb and remember thnking it looked fine.
i'll have to dig it out to take a look again.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No - I also prefer the theatrical cut. From my review (http://www.dvdmg.com/spiderman2.1.shtml):

"As an alternate version for fans Spider-Man 2.1 offers a fun take on things. The changes don’t significantly harm the tale, as it still works very well in this format. However, I think the shorter theatrical cut offers the superior edition. It presents a tighter, smoother flick and remains the best way to experience the story."

 

[Ron Reda]

Hmm, I may have to check this out. I do wish it had the DTS track though. If it did, I may have gone for it already, reviews unread.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

In my opinion, this was worth it for the JJJ in Spidey-suit scenes alone.

 

[Jack _Webster]

**Warning: Rant below.**



I'm inclined to agree with those who side with the original theatrical cut. It's not that the 2.1 cut doesn't work, it's just that there's no need for it. What happened to the good old days when the version you saw in the theaters was what you were meant to see? All these extended cuts are ruining it for me. The Theatrical Cut is Sam Raimi's final version and that is all that matters to me.

I regret being suckered into another one of Sony's ripoffs (which I only caved on due to my excitement for Spidey 3). The only alternate cuts I can say I'm proud of buying in recent years are: Lord of the Rings, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, & Amadeus. These were films with legitimate reasons for providing Extended/Director's Cuts. Not because of money making BS.

I remember I used to long for director's cuts of some of my favorite movies (like Braveheart, for example). Now I just pray the studios leave them alone.

 

[Malcolm R]

Oh, please. Studios do not release ANYTHING unless they think they can make money. They are not so charitable as to just throw money at these directors for purely "artistic" reasons. Just because you happen to approve of that handful of extended editions does not make them any more worthy, or less profit-driven, than any others.

 

[Jack _Webster]

I'm not so naive as to believe that this is not partly behind every release.

However, when Sam Raimi says that it is not his preferred cut, but has some scenes that would be fun to see, or to hear Ridley Scott (in his intro to Gladiator: EE) grudgingly say that there are some scenes that might be interesting to see (hell, he didn't even oversee the edit!) - makes my head spin. I have a problem with studio-inspired extended cuts. They are pointless, imo.

And just because I mentioned those cuts as the ones I deem credible - doesn't mean that they are. I just mentioned that as my own opinion. I'm certain there are others of great merit to people (Blade Runner comes to mind, among others). I just wish that if a director has no wish to revisit a film to make changes, the studio would leave well enough alone.